Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @10:58PM
from the hoisting-with-your-own-petard dept.

inode_buddha writes "Not long ago we ran a story about how a NY newspaper published lists of gun owners. Now, it seems the same newspaper has hired armed guards in response to unspecified threats to the editor, amid 'large volumes of negative response.' From the article: 'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said. The guards are protecting the newspaper's staff and Rockland County offices in West Nyack, New York.'"

Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?

If -- and it's a big if, total hypothetical here, but if -- a dictatorship took power in the U.S. and an armed resistance composed of armed citizens opposed it, the experience of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the example of resistance groups in Nazi-occupied areas during WWII suggests that a resistance force armed with rifles (even ones not capable of fully automatic fire) could put up significant resistance, yes. Hell, look at how much trouble the Branch Davidians gave the feds, and they were a bunch of frickin' nutcases.

More importantly, though, armed citizens can protect themselves not only against criminals but against corrupt governments on the state and local level. Armed groups played a key role in winning civil rights for African-Americans during the 1960s, both by standing up directly against racist cops and by defending black citizens against violence when the police would not respond.

Syria, Liberia and to a lesser degree Egypt show how hard it is to overthrow a well armed dictatorship. India and the Soviet block show another way to overthrow a government.Besides for America to turn into a dictatorship would take the support of a good chunk of Americans. The dictatorship would probably be right wing religious with the majority of gun owners backing up the dictatorship as it is needed to stop those horrible liberals who only won the election due to immigrants or some such excuse.Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.

Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.

Hitler was elected.

Sorry for the Godwin, but this is appropriate.

Tyranny is often the tyranny of the majority. Turkey massacred Armenians. Germans massacred, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other despised minorities. The Chinese and Soviets slaughtered millions of their political opponents.

Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?

If -- and it's a big if, total hypothetical here, but if -- a dictatorship took power in the U.S. and an armed resistance composed of armed citizens opposed it, the experience of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the example of resistance groups in Nazi-occupied areas during WWII suggests that a resistance force armed with rifles (even ones not capable of fully automatic fire) could put up significant resistance, yes. Hell, look at how much trouble the Branch Davidians gave the feds, and they were a bunch of frickin' nutcases.

Additionally, in such a worst case scenario, one must remember that a good portion of our military forces is made up of Army and Air National Guard troops. When push comes to shove, the Feds may find that a large portion of those guns wielded by the citizen soldiers of the various States will be pointed in the other direction instead of at the civilians that they have sworn to protect. Chances are, if civil war broke out here in the U.S. due to the federal government plunging us into a totalitarian dictatorship, even some of the state governors (who are the primary C&Cs for the Army and Air National Guard units in their jurisdictions) could very well throw their support behind their citizen troops instead of casting their lot with the federal forces.

Suffice it to say, a 21st Century civil war here in the U.S. would be one of the most horrific events imaginable. Either that, or all troops, State and Federal, would suddenly remember their oaths to defend the Constitution and the people from all threats foreign and domestic, recognize the tyrants in D.C. as a domestic threat, and resolve the issue with a minimum amount of bloodshed.

Note that military M16 has select-fire which can choose between semi-automatic, 3 round burst, & full-automatic.

This is incorrect.

The most widely deployed version of the M16, the M16A2 had three positions on the selector switch: safe, semi-automatic and three-round burst. There is no full auto setting, because the US military has decided that except in the hands of highly-trained troops full auto wastes ammunition to no effect (note that this is not the case for real machine guns, like the M60 and M243, which also burn through the ammo but can use it much more effectively).

The M16A3 does have full auto rather than three-round burst, but it's used only by very small numbers of highly-trained troops. SEALs and such.

The new M16A4, now standard issue for the Marine Corps and some Army units, has safe, semi and three-round burst. No full auto.

No M16 variant has ever had a four-position selector switch, which is what would be needed to provide semi, three-round burst, full auto and a safety position.

Governments being overthrown by the citizens is never ever about the level of firepower.

It is always about so many of the citizens being pissed enough to be willing to die in protests or go to jail in such large numbers that the Government is no longer sure of the support of large sections of its police, army, administration etc.

Doing that with assault rifles or unarmed like Gandhi is no different. An individual in both cases has to be willing to die, even if the overall fatalities as a group may be less or more.

How many US Citizens with assault rifles have ever protested against the TSA ? Can you even imagine them doing so ?
Its probably better to protest unarmed against Governments. As a rule, the Government can't back down from an armed conflict till it has expended all its resources. Its quicker and cleaner, relatively, for hordes of people to protest, go to jail, get hurt, few even killed to make a sufficient impact.

Except that only people who are mowing down schoolchildren or watermelons for a youtube video use full auto. Burning through your full magazine in four seconds in any sort of conflict zone is the best way to get sent home in a pine box.

The reason why we're picky about the words is because they carry implications. If you say that you have an "assault rifle", someone who's not familiar with the topic will go and look up the definition on Wikipedia, and scream bloody murder because a civilian has a full auto weapon. Indeed, the press and anti-gun legislators love to confuse that issue by talking about "assault weapons", and then quietly shifting to "assault rifles" and describing the carnage that can be unleashed with automatic fire from one...

Sure, like they wouldn't shoot Americans at Kent State? Or mace calmly sitting protesters, releasing statements about the violent actions of the protesters directly contradicted by hundreds of eye witnesses and extensive video coverage(though that was cops, not military, is still government lackeys)?

the gun owners demonstrate why they should not own guns. They lose their cool and react in hate and threats. People who are that uncontrolled can't be trusted to operate a firearm under stress or for the right reason. They should have their guns taken away until the grow up.
The paper published what was on public record, so the gun owners try to intimidate the press - threaten death and violence- for publishing something they didn't like. but is readily available. W T F

They have no right to the privacy of their handgun permit, which, by state law, is public information, which they knew when they applied for said permit. Oh, they didn't know that was the law? Well, you know what our founding father TJ said about ignorance and the law.

They have no right to the privacy of their handgun permit, which, by state law, is public information, which they knew when they applied for said permit.

There is a difference between something being "public information" but requiring specific action to discover and a 3rd party collecting that information and publicly publishing it.

I think that the newspaper did that in an attempt to intimidate those people and anyone thinking of getting a similar permit.

Which is where the "irony" part comes in.Now the newspaper people are the ones intimidated.Now the newspaper people have turned to OTHER armed people (not the government or police force) for protection from the people they attempted to intimidate in the first place.

Are you seriously trying to associate a statist quote like ignorance of the law is no excuse with Thomas Jefferson? Thomas Jefferson?

The Thomas Jefferson who said The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive?

The Thomas Jefferson who said, Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny?

The Thomas Jefferson who said, I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master?

The quote you allude to is from some Briton a few decades earlier.

However you are correct about it being public information. Yet another reason to not live in New York.

Incidentally, here are some other Jefferson quotes:

No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.

Oh yeah, Jefferson was a mega-gun nut, but then all the founding fathers were in favor of unrestricted civilian gun ownership, since they had just survived a war started when the British began confiscating arms from the colonies engaged in peaceful protest, and won primarily by the effort of civilian militias.

What threats? This is simply a perfect example of those that say "Oh you don't need guns" showing why THEY don'y need guns....because they can HIRE guns! What, you don't have the money to hire guns? Then get robbed or killed you filthy peasant! We shall drink our fancy coffees with our private armies and laugh at your misery...hah!

The 1st doesn't assure people of saying anything they want without repercussions.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere throughout this have I seen the government restrict the press in any which way. I do see, however, a possible legal case for a class action lawsuit, (or maybe even a criminal case ?) to be made against the paper for their actions. Reasonably, the subjects of this 'news' would be at least allowed to "petition the Government for redress of their grievances" due to the fact that the press is a state-established and protected institution in the United States.

What the paper did has more akin with a newspaper in the South during the Civil War publishing a list of "Northern sympathizers". "Oh, we're just reporting the news!" No; no, you weren't: you were publicizing a list which you hoped would serve as a hit list, "outing" them in a politically hostile environment to try to muster public sentiment (aka violence) against them.

Government has no rights. It most certainly doesn't have any right to know what I own or possess, until said government obtains a warrant. That is why we have the Fourth Amendment. So, until some asshole obtains a warrant, you best believe I will never register my property, nor seek a license to exercise any of my rights.

The archetype of what's wrong with America is someone who doesn't roll over and give up their rights on demand by some government bureaucrat? There is exactly nothing wrong in what the previous poster said. Government has no rights and they absolutely have no right to know what I, or anyone else, do or do not own.

The archetype of what's wrong with America is someone who doesn't roll over and give up their rights on demand by some government bureaucrat?

No, it's the "conservative" pricks who spend more than the "liberal" pricks, when elected (claiming fiscal conservatism while being fiscally irresponsible). The "pro-freedom" pricks who want to register everyone for things that don't apply to them, but certainly not their favorite fetish. When they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up. When they came for the mentally ill, and I did not speak up. When they came for the gun owners, there will be nobody left to speak out for you. How far will you get against the government if you stand alone with all the guns you could carry?

You seem to be confused between the drastically different concepts of "what government does" and "what government has a right to do". By your "logic", the government has the right to do anything the government says it has the right to do. Believe that's called "tyranny".

By your logic, if the US Congress passed a law outlawing any and all forms of speech deemed "too liberal" (as defined by to-be-written FCC guidelines), and the President signed it into law, and the US Supreme Court rejected a challenge to that law, then our government has every right to come to your home and haul you to prison for however long it pleases.

No, it is our job to defend ourselves and defend our rights. Government has no responsibility to respond to any calls of assistance from you, no matter how many movies and TV shows lie to you. Read the abundant case law to clear this up.

I assume you are not from the U.S. so perhaps a quick US Civics lesson is in order.

In the U.S., the Federal government has limited powers -- ONLY those explicitly ceded to it by the United States Constitution. The Federal government has no rights whatsoever. We elect politicians to administer those powers that we ceded to the Federal Government - and that is IT.

In a black and white world, true. But I tend to vote democrat because on the whole, they are more useful to me, but on guns I totally agree with republicans. Because no party represents my interests uniformly, I sometimes have to vote for the guy who will screw me on gun laws.

But not having to register property that I legally purchased strikes me as an important part, in particular, of gun ownership. For exactly the reasons the "victims" in this article highlight (not that I support threats, if they are indeed real). Someone just compiled a list of law abiding gun owners, and published it for everyone to see, in spite of it not being anyone else's business.

I fully support people who break laws in which there is no victim. From marijuana, to gun ownership, to speeding on the highway. Let the government bear the significant financial burden of policing this nonsense and paying for the necessary discipline.

But not having to register property that I legally purchased strikes me as an important part, in particular, of gun ownership.

So you would apply that to your land? It is registered in the form of a deed. How about your car? It is registered as well as has a license and in most, if not all states an insurance requirement.

Personally, I believe we need to treat guns the same as we treat automobiles. Require that the owner is trained and licensed to use them. Make sure they are insured for when they are used on a person that that person or their survivors can get something more than they currently are getting (nothing). Identify each guns ballistic characteristics at the time of manufacture and tie it to the last registered owner for easier identification of the responsible party. In short, take it from a right to a responsibility with real world consequences when that responsibility is violated.

In enlightenment philosophy, rights were those self-evident truths that all men had the same freedoms to life, to liberty, to self-determination. Governments don't have such "rights". Democratic governments have responsibilities. Other governments have force and caprice.

As to "the right to tax you", If we were to read the original constitution we'd see that congress was delegated the power to tax imports, exports, and the states themselves. It provided a formula for how to share taxes among the states, which was based on the state population, broken down by indians, slaves, and everybody else. But nowhere was Congress delegated authority to tax individuals, until the 19th amendment.

That new power to tax individuals was (and is) considered unconstitutional by many, because they believe the 19th amendment was not properly ratified - snuck through the system with The People largely unaware, with dubious and incomplete records of many of the requisite elections.

Even if we accept the 19th amendment as legitimate, that tax regime is not a self-evident truth, it's a human invention, an arbitrary method of funding the government.

Our government is just a glorified home owners' association that the home owners themselves formed and chartered, and can also revise, re-charter or (with some difficulty) disband.

The federal government has the job of doing exactly what the States (via Senators and Representatives) tell it to do, nothing less, nothing more.

I am pleased to support it when it provides me services, because I feel I share a duty. Not because the US government has a "right" to my labor and property.

People have rights. People delegate *powers* to the state. The state does not have rights. Con Law 101, or maybe Con Law 1.

How in blazes did your ignorance get modded +5 informative? Oh.... I guess the mods need to take Con Law 1, too.

It's very interesting how different definitions of political words get used.

"Right" is a particularly tricky one. Despite American Jingoists insistance that the mid-18th century Enlightenment definition is the only possible one, and that anyone using it any other way should shot, it has multiple meanings.

An older definition is that a 'right' is specific to an individual or group of individuals. Medieval rebellions in defense of "rights" were not demanding everyone have the exact same rights, they were demanding the King respect the right of different groups of people to be treated differently. It's a perfectly valid use of the term, but it's also the exact opposite of the pseudo-intelectual definition you just gave. It's even perfectly valid in some American legal contexts. For example, you don't have the right to practice medicine in Ohio unless you get the approval of a group of people who do have that right. The right to sell Star Wars DVDs do not belong to everyone in the entire world equally, they belong to the one guy who has the Copyright.

Since this is all very confusing, with right on one hand meaning something literally anyone can do and on the other hand meaning something only one person (or a handful of people) can do, in common usage "Right" just means legal ability to do something. I have the right to sue your ass because there isn't a Court Order that says otherwise. The Government has the right to tax your ass because you can't get a court order telling them to stop. I have the right to call your ass stupid because the First Amendment says so, not because some 18th Century French Baron thought it was only natural and a generation of thinkers every American reveres agreed.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

That seems pretty clear to me... As to whether te expenses to be paid for are justified is a different matter...

Just because a group of thugs calls themselves a "government" does not grant them some magical rights apart from those possessed by the citizens who consent to be ruled by that government.

The consent is not a factor here. Most governments on the planet operate without consent of the governed. Mao was correct: the power comes from the barrel of the gun. The government can shoot you and get away with murder. You cannot. That's how it works.

Are you suggesting that might makes right? That if you can get 50.1% of a group to agree with you, then anything you and your representatives do is legitimate?

I don't like it, but that's exactly how the world works. As soon as a group has enough power to do what it wants, it goes ahead and does it. The 50.1% is often not a requirement; you could have 30% and rule over others - as long as those "other" are three distinct groups with 23% each. USSR was ruled by the educated elite who did not number more than 10% of the population. That was more than enough to keep the rest scared or imprisoned. As a recent example of the USA shows, 50.1% of voters can force their choice of the President onto the remaining 49.9% (I'm omitting the comparison of candidates here, it would be depressing in itself.)

To me, that sounds more like hell on Earth than civilization.

Welcome to the club. Machiavelli and de Montesquieu were not contemporaries, but someone [wikipedia.org] put together their dialogs when they met in Hell. The enlightened de Montesquieu was unable to come up with a model of the society that would work any better than the tyranny postulated by Machiavelli. Here is the formula:

bad dictator < democracy < good dictator

Democracy is just an insurance against the bad dictator. But the premiums are killing you. It's mediocrity forever, as opposed to highs and lows of monarchies and dictatorships. In Deus Ex merging with Helios is the wisest ending because the two other endings (giving power to humans) will only result in recurrence of the struggle.

Unless you redefine "right" to mean anything one group can do to another with minimal fear of reprisal due to greater number and/or better armaments,

That's exactly how ZANU-PF komissars understand the word. They are not alone in this interpretation - victors are usually merciless. In the USA the victorious left is already laying claim on your income and your guns - the stuff that separates a free man from an indigent.

Human beings have rights. Governments have powers that they exercise. When the exercise of the latter interferes with the former, that is the simple definition of tyranny.

Precisely.

This is the radical concept on which the US was founded that sets it apart from every other government on the planet. In fact, the only government built on this principle in 5,000 years.

That is why I blow-off those who say things like "Well, $FOREIGNCOUNTRY/REGION runs things this way, why doesn't the US?". Because the US is based on concepts and principles unique to the US. If there wasn't such a difference in basic principles, there wouldn't have been an American Revolutionary War.

If the US goes down, the last bastion of, and only real positive force for, individual freedom in the entire world in 5,000 years of human history will be gone. There will be no place left to flee to. Hell, it's already gotten so bad that now people in the US are looking around vainly trying to find someplace to escape the ever-more-tyrannical US government.

Why is it becoming ever-more tyrannical? Because people have fallen to the notion that the US can be governed successfully based on the principles of other nations' and regions' governments, instead of the principles laid out in the US Constitution and the writings of it's authors. The further the US has strayed, the worse things have gotten, and the worse they will get if this course is not halted and reversed.

There is a background history to guns that U.S. citizens tend to forget, because they do not seem to understand the middle ages.

The initial development of gunpowder lead to to weapons, specifically for war. The later development of portable guns was always in the function of killing people. It is probably only in the 18th century that guns became easy enough to be used as hunting tools (can't find references about this).

People on the North American frontier needed guns to defend and to feed themselves. This was probably the first and last time in history that guns became a tool for personal support.

I think that is the main difference in culture between the US and Europe. On the European continent, guns have mostly (99.99%) been part of the armies, which were directed by the kings and nobility. I think that there is a deep, unconscious suspicion against gun ownership in Europe. In Europe, guns have never been the tools of liberation, but always of oppression. In the U.S., this became the opposite.

However, I would warn those people who think that their gun ownership make them safe for criminals or can be used against their government.

In the first case, if a criminal wants to get you, he will take more time planning and be prepared to use means that he can get to, but you can't. In the case of petty criminality, citizen gun ownership will probably make a difference, but in the case of heavy criminality, you will almost certainly lose.

In the second case, I suggest that people who think they can use their guns successfully against their government, study the Boer Wars. Yes, it was not easy for the English to succeed, but succeed they finally did. It is just a case of planning, time and means. Then compare the former English army at the end of the 19th century with the current U.S. Army.

Who said anything about mass shootings? Only you. Mass shootings kill about as many people in this country as terrorism. They are that rare. So attacking people with mental illnesses makes about as much sense as profiling Muslims.

The real gun violence that kills significant amounts of people is due to the War on Drugs, high value property thefts, and domestic violence. All of these are due to easy access to guns and have no relation to mental illness. They are cultural.

I would have hoped that people on Slashdot would be smart enough to realize that if it has been studied and established that the rate of violence by people with mental illnesses or Muslims is no higher than that of the general public, then they shouldn't be ostracized and attacked. Most people are too stupid to realize this, but I would hope those of us here are smart enough to get past the scary news hyperbole and focus on the actual problem. If you want to save lives then you need to minimize the stigma on mental illness, not increase it. And you need to focus on the poor, disenfranchised, but mentally healthy youths who are being gunned down in our streets every day. From their point of view, gun violence is entirely logical. It is how they survive in a society that doesn't give a shit about them.

It also should not protect your ability to publish whether or not I legally purchased a gun, since that is very likely to result in me being unjustly harassed by anti-gun nuts like you.

Could you draw a line between which publicly available information (such as New York gun registrations) shall be reprintable and which you'd like the government to suppress?

I suppose the difference comes from why they wanted to print it and make such a big deal about it. All things considered it was another attempt to demonize a segment of the population they don't care for and would like to go away. It wasn't news. It was an attempt at intimidation.

names and addresses of all people listed in a phone book, and elsewhere are public information.

In fact, there is no evidence of anyone committing a crime against the scaredy pants editor of the news paper. The reason you don't publish people's personal information is because people will harass you.

The fact that this backfired in the face of little Ms Caryn McBride, should be a stern warning to everyone not to write checks with your mouth your ass can't cash. Now if we can all settle down, and release the newspaper got exactly what it bargined for. It got the exact same harassment they intended for the gun owners. Thats irony.

The bigger problem is that this hyper partisanism where people actively think this sort of harassment is justified when they do it, and not when its someone else.

It was the newspaper's right to publish the data they published. It was still a bad thing to do. The first amendment would also protect their right to publish lists of suspected communists or records of purchases of prophylactics and pregnancy tests. The first amendment protects their rights to publish that information. It doesn't make it not a violation of privacy and all around dick move. The second issue, of course, is the existence of the list to begin with. They got the list from the government, which compiled it through fairly straightforward violations of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.

They're significantly more innocent than the violent assholes threatening them.

First off, I wouldn't say they were *significantly* more innocent. They attempted intimidation first. They are more innocent than the people threatening them with deadly weapons but that it for that part.

Secondly, they did not just post the names of the people who threatened them. They also posted the names of innocent people who had exercised their 2nd Amendment rights and who have NOT threatened them. They are less innocent than those people.

So the final question should be whether 50%+ of the people they "outed" have threatened them or not. I'm going to guess not. But that's just based upon the people I know who own guns.

So what they're saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. Gee where have I heard that recently....

Well, they may be saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is trained, licensed, regulated guys with guns, who can only carry on duty, don't take their firearm home, etc. Just like most of the civilized world do.

One of the local gun stores also offers training to both security firms and concealed carry holders (well, potential ones). They joke that most of the holes in their ceilings are from the security guards that come in for training. The "training" that most security firms are willing to pay for is to send the guys to the range and have them fire off a few dozen rounds from a revolver and then be sent back. Many security guards have never fired a gun before that and unless they're a gun owner outside of their job, many never will again.

Now take the gun enthusiasts. Most people I know that are really into guns visit the range at least monthly. I personally do at least 2 practice sessions per month, 3 USPSA pistol matches, and 1 Steel Challenge match. Generally that's 800-1000 rounds per month. I've been through concealed weapons training, hunter's education, and NROI Range Officer training. I know a ton of people in the hobby who practice and train to similar degrees.

Do you honestly think because they wear a roughly law-enforcement-esque uniform that a security guard is magically more capable of handling a weapon?

Do you honestly think because they wear a roughly law-enforcement-esque uniform that a security guard is magically more capable of handling a weapon?

No. I agree. But there are many many law enforcement (and -esque) groups that do have at least cursory gun handling standards and require time on the range.

Now take the gun enthusiasts...blah blah blah

Ok, now take that minority of well trained enthusiasts and set them aside.

Now take the majority remaineder all the people with guns who don't do any of that. At all. Ever.

What about them?

I can't really follow what your argument is, it seems to be trying to argue that random civilians can handle weapons better than law-enforcement-esque types and sure that's true for some handful of carefully screened and cherry picked group of civilians.

Cops do take their firearms home, mostly since they buy them themselves a majority of the time. Apparently uniforms give you magical powers of gun or something. But I guess armed security is just as good. We should all just be rich and hire an armed entourage to follow us around and that way we can protect ourselves. Oh, you're too poor for that? Too bad. Security is only for us rich people.

Now seems like a good time to inject some uncomfortable facts. According the the latest FBI statistics, law enforcement officers are perpetrators of violent crime at *exactly* the same rate as the general population. This is not counting "police brutality" or any other duty-related charges, real or imagined. CCW holders on the other hand, are perpetrators of violent crime at about 1/20 the rate of the general population, and therefore at 1/20 the rate of law enforcement officers, also.

So, using FBI statistics, the chance of a law enforcement officer using his firearms for nefarious ends are about 20X that of your neighbor with a CCW license doing likewise.

So what they're saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. Gee where have I heard that recently....

And so what you're saying is that the gun owners who were mapped and are now making threats are "bad guys". A gun is what makes the difference between a blowhard you can ignore and a real threat of death.

So what they're saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. Gee where have I heard that recently....

And so what you're saying is that the gun owners who were mapped and are now making threats are "bad guys". A gun is what makes the difference between a blowhard you can ignore and a real threat of death.

No one said that it is the gun owners on the list who have made these threats. Hell, they could be non-gun owners from Seattle for all we know. For all we know they are also doing this to further garner media attention by claiming the reaction was more threatening than it was. Either way, there are plenty of responsible and irresponsible gun owners, and not everyone of those gun owners may be law abiding in the first place.

...A gun is what makes the difference between a blowhard you can ignore and a real threat of death.

Yes. Exactly this. If you read the constitution and the words of our forefathers about it one of the fundamental reasons behind gun ownership being a right in the USA is to allow citizens to FORCE the government to listen. It's to ensure the citizens have a voice and a means to ensure that voice is not only heard, but acted on.

I think you need to reexamine the history here. Based on historical writings, as well as years of SCOTUS rulings it was very much the intent of the founding fathers that gun ownership, above all else is to prevent the tyranny of the government over the populous.

The larger problem is determining who is the good guy and who is the bad guy often enough.

Sure, someone shooting children is most likely the bad guy.

Sure, the FIRST guy running through the mall with a guy is most likely the bad guy...what about the second one that's behind him? Savior or coconspirator?

Sure, the guy in the uniform is probably a good guy, but there are plenty of examples when that's not the case - be it fake uniforms or unscrupulous security/police.

You know...now that I think about it there's only one single person I can be sure is the good guy. Me. Therefore I should be armed at all times in all places. Then i'm 100% sure a good guy is armed to protect my interests. You all should do the same. It worked in the recent mall shooting even though the media declined to focus on it as it doesn't suit their "neutral" agenda.

Except for the a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners than compared to good people, therefore if you want to correlate bad persons its easier to check the gun registry.

That might be the most retarded thing I've read on/.

While a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners, you won't find them on the CCW lists or filling out 4473s [wikipedia.org] at the local gun shop. They illegally buy illegal guns illegally imported from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The projection bias, bravado, paranoia, necessity that sometimes leads to gun ownership, is a pretty strong indication that the person is bad or crazy.

And how many case studies did you perform before pulling this conclusion out of your ass?
The fact that so many bad guys have guns, and they're so easy for bad guys to buy, despite all of the laws against it (I'm confounded as to why these criminals keep violating the gun laws), would prompt a rational person to look for a form of protection. Therefore I conclude that the number of guns a person owns is directly proportional to his sanity.

I cannot count the number of times I have seen John Wayne or 'gangasta' wannabes flash their weapon, as if they are somehow the just and righteous parties (mass killers are included), but end up just being either dumb, ignorant, or mentally ill.

I can't count the number of times a unicorn has bought me lunch, and probably for the same reason.
I'd wager I know a few more legal gun owners than you do, and we as a group do not flash our guns. We are normal middle-class people who know that the cops can't be everywhere and that there are evil, crazy, or otherwise dangerous people in the world.

Without guns there are no bad people with guns, and no need for good people with guns, or bad people who think they are good people with guns.

Wouldn't want their employees to feel threatened by the angry gun-owning proletarians they chastise and demean on a daily basis.

So, basically, you should only get armed protection if you're a politician or a sleazeball newspaper editor. What a great strategy to disarm your opposition so you can oppress with no fear of retribution!

I am compiling a publicly-accessible list of all Slashdot members. Please provide your full legal name and address for entry into the records.What's that? You don't want to? Well, what are you afraid of? Clearly if you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to be afraid of...

Noooooooo! My girlfriend will leave me if she finds out I'm a recovering basement dweller!

While I'm in favor of banning guns, I'm not in favor of violating the privacy of thousands of people. What this paper did was, while still legal, incredibly unethical. It was a vindictive attack on gun owners to try to inspire fear in the public.

You are a fucking idiot. I don't say that lightly. There is no such thing as personality disorder medication. This is because you can only treat the traits of a personality disorder with medication, not the personality disorder itself. Things like depression, anxiety, and psychosis can be treated with medication. But that doesn't treat a personality disorder itself. A personality disorder is treated by changing the way a person thinks and responds to the world. This is because a personality disorder is primarily a malformed way a person learned to deal with stress in the world, partially due to biological reasons and partially due to environmental reasons. For example, a child who was repeatedly raped by a parent or guardian might learn than you can't trust the ones you love and that people that you love are secretly trying to hurt you. They might have incredible abandonment fears while still rejecting everyone around them due to fear. No medication can fix that. That is what a personality disorder is. Actual mental illness isn't the funny or nutcase stories you hear. It is incredibly painful and tragic. Finding out you have a personality disorder is no more fun than finding you have cancer.

So, lets take this one step further. Many people with mental illnesses have been victims of serious trauma, before or during their mental illness. Your desire to publish these lists will also include tons of child abuse, rape, and PTSD victims. You also punish people for trying to get help in their lives and reinforce the massive stigma associated with mental illness. If people had a list of those with mental illnesses, they would be able to refuse to rent to them or employ them. This already occurs, but you would take it to the next level. And because of that, people who think they have a mental illness would refuse to try to find treatment (which already occurs 2/3rds of the time).

Here's a secret: people with a mental illness are no more violent than the general population. You only think they are because you are stupid and haven't read the research. Stop attacking people with mental illness. It is bigotry and should be treated as such.

So you are in favor of violating an explicitly stated amendment(the Second Amendment explicitly protects citizens' rights to arms equal to our military, considering the portions "A well regulated militia..."(the word regulated meaning equally or well equipped, as used during the inception and passing of the Second Amendment) and "...the right of the people..."(while "The People" and "the people" both refer to the citizenry, from whence the authority of the various government is derived from, "The People" is termed to discuss the wider authority(our governments); "the people" directly refer to the citizenry). The whole "...shall not be infringed." part would cause any bans to be severe violations of the Second Amendment) to the US Constitution, for a protection that isn't explicitly stated but decided through case law? While both protections are important, and I support both, I fail to see how anyone, of any intelligence, would advocate violating the highest and most important document in the United States.

There were close to 100 million firearm owners in the United States that have not used their firearms to commit any crimes, nor knowingly commit any crimes, of any kind, either recently, nor at any time in the past. So, considering the odds, legal firearm owners are the most law abiding citizens that exists. Those are the people that should have arms, considering the reason our rights were protected(The Second Amendment protected an already existing right; that Amendment didn't create any new right.).

"Shut up the WBC or prevent them from picketing, as we don't want to hurt the families of soldiers. But don't take my rights away, I need my free speech.""Make terrorist and predators online names associated with their real person to protect the children. But don't take away my privacy, I need my privacy."

Yep, strikingly. Though, it sounds different when dealing with rights instead of material property. That is, gun rights vs the physical guns. And when you pose it as "owners should willingly give up for th

Irony at its finest. It always baffles me that those in favor of banning guns are the very ones that use them. Of course its perfectly alright to have people with guns protecting them, yet it is entirely unacceptable for others to use them to protect themselves and their family.

'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said.

So the newspaper is against guns and publishes a list of gun owners... and then hires a bunch of folks armed with, yes, guns. When push comes to shove, the reality is clear. Guns are effective as a defense measure. Criminals do not care about laws so outlawing guns will not take the guns from the criminals. This mean that all gun laws are for the explicit purpose of making law abiding citizens defenseless against criminals.

Guns can be used to make committing crimes easier and to make defense against crimes easier. Seems like a null proposition and that all guns should be abolished. Right? Well, not quite so fast there. Guns equalize the situation. Without a gun, crimes and defense against crimes depends purely on physical characteristics of the aggressor and the intended victim. A large and fit criminal can pretty much do whatever they want. Everyone else gets to suffer. Guns change this equation. Anyone who can shoot can defend themselves against aggression as long as they can aim and pull a trigger. This rebalances the equation in favor of having guns around for self defense.

I do not even personally own a gun (kids in the house and such) and yet I feel safer knowing that people around me could be carrying guns. Criminals always perform their crimes when the police are not present.

I live in Australia too and although gun violence does happen here, it is the exception rather than the rule. I'd say current system of gun laws is working reasonably well.Being an island does make importing guns illegally more difficult, which helps.

But think about this a step further. Presumably, the people who are doing all of the threatening (clearly highly intimidating threats otherwise guards wouldn't be called in) are supposed to be the 'good guys' gun carriers, not the bad guy criminals who aren't supposed to have guns in the first place. This whole thing says a lot about the perceived power a gun holder has over someone without. Good guy or bad, own a gun and you start to feel power enough to turn into a thug.

And aren't the thugs what the good guy gun owners want to defend against?

But think about this a step further. Presumably, the people who are doing all of the threatening (clearly highly intimidating threats otherwise guards wouldn't be called in) are supposed to be the 'good guys' gun carriers, not the bad guy criminals who aren't supposed to have guns in the first place. This whole thing says a lot about the perceived power a gun holder has over someone without. Good guy or bad, own a gun and you start to feel power enough to turn into a thug.

And aren't the thugs what the good guy gun owners want to defend against?

As I said in a comment above, we have no idea who (if anyone) made these threats. The way that they published the information before makes me think they are attention whores. We all know attention whores do what they can to get more attention. But lets assume they were threatened. We still do not know who the people threatening them are, whether they own guns, whether they even live in the same time zone as the newspaper, etc. There are plenty of crazy people out there who would get a kick out of making such threats. I would agree making such threats would not qualify one as a responsible gun owner, however.

Gun control advocates love to indicate the 'logic' that less guns correlates to less homicides. But Logic, also requires that negation hold true. More guns = more homicides... right? However when gun sales have surged in the last 10 years, increasing nearly 40% in the last 10 years, homicides, especially gun related homicides, are down. Funny how "a clear correlation between guns and homicides" breaks down when applying basic statistics..0003% of guns used in homicides... clearly a problem with guns, if and only if you lust after leaving people defenseless and powerless. Of course if less gun = less homicides then more guns = more homicides which... well isn't true.

Wait it isn't linear... wait there are more regressors... wait there are more excuses and attempts to over-fit a model... Did you know that the price of gasoline correlates to the number of homicides committed between the hours of 9 PM CST and 11:41 PM CST. Of course the question is how strong the correlation is. Good lore you would be surprised what you can make correlate to something.

The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a gang violence problem. You take out gang related homicides and guess what, were are nearly identical to Canada, England, France, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Germany, and the rest of the top 30 peaceful nations per 100,000. The problem is inner city poverty, broken homes, and poor childhood development which is the American cocktail for gangs.

Keep your head in the sand and keep ignoring the gang violence problem. Yeah ban the last line of defense citizens have against those lawless gangs...

That's right kids, they are just following the gutless NRA nanny state suggestion - the one where the government is supposed to protect children by hiring a lot of armed guards.Doing the right thing and helping to control military quality guns requires more courage than the NRA has. Asking for the government to get a lot bigger and protect all the children in a nanny state solution is a cowardly way to avoid responsibility.

This is outrageous. What about all the NON-gun-owning homes? This newspaper just posted THIS HOME IS A GUN-FREE ZONE signs on all non-gun-owners' houses.

If you think for an instant that this list will not be carefully inspected by criminals seeking to minimize occupational hazards, you have another thing coming. Thanks to Sandy Hook, homeowners without guns will not likely be able to purchase guns for some time (many stores are sold out due to sudden demand). Therefore, this list will remain accurate for some time to come.

From a security standpoint, this list is really terrible, and is almost worse for non-gun-owners than for gun-owners, at least in terms of immediate personal security.

Why is this comment modded up?!? It is public information, so, yeah, it can be published by a "Public source..." If you want to debate the fact that it's public information, that's one thing, but you're not.

You can't compare crimes from 2 different countries where one has lax gun laws and one has strict gun laws because those two countries are vastly different in their culture, their reporting of violent crime, and the people that make up those countries. If you compare those 2, you will end up with skewed data.

Instead, you can look at the data at a country that has gone from relatively lax gun laws to strict gun laws such as Australia. Depending on the source you will either find a slight increase in violent crimes or no major change.

Guns are not the problem. The problem is, unsurprisingly, people. Violent people will find ways to commit violence no matter what tools are in their disposal. Just look at the school stabbing in China, or the epidemic of knife violence in the UK.

Indeed if you look at the places where mass murders took place (Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc.) you find a distinct theme: the attacker is the only one with a gun. If you want to have a massive body count, you don't attack someplace where people can defend themselves. Instead, you find places where law abiding citizens cannot legally defend themselves, places like schools. You look at attempted mass shootings like the one at the Oregon mall and you find it stopped by someone who was legally armed.

And you can't buy fully automatic (where you hold down the trigger and the gun fires until it runs out of bullets) weapons in the US easily (you have to have a massive background check and pay a large "tax stamp" to buy one, not to mention the price of the gun itself). What you are most likely talking about are semi-automatic rifles (where when one round is fired another is loaded in the chamber) which are used in many, if not most modern hunting rifles (personally I use a semi-automatic 30.06 for deer hunting, although for big bore rifles bolt action or a break-open design is better for example a.416 Rigby or.404 Jeffery).

The founding fathers did not in any way think of the internet, therefore we shouldn't have a right to free expression on the internet. The founding fathers didn't have a clue about Mormonism, therefore Mormons shouldn't have a right to practice their religion. Etc.

It is a misconception that the second amendment was written to allow for hunting or even just private home defense. Instead the second amendment was written to allow private citizens to own the same weapons that the government had access to, therefore assuring that if the republic would turn to tyranny the citizens could stage an armed revolt and change the government.

Not quite. The Amedment doesn't grant a right - it prohibits the Government from infringing on a right we already posess. Much discussion on this matter sems to be from the unspoken point of view that we get rights from our government, like a gift.
Our constitution was written to restrict the power of the federal government.

Indeed. For anyone that thinks that loading a magazine is some major roadblock, take a look at the video I'm linking below. It's of Max Michel drawing his gun from a holster and firing 18 rounds - reloading twice (every 6 rounds on 3 targets) all in under 5 seconds. Granted, he's a grand-master ranked pistol shooter, but even the most ham-fisted idiot won't take more than 3-4 seconds to perform a mag change.